HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201300055 Review Comments 2013-10-07Project Name:
Date Completed:
Reviewer:
Department/Division/Agency:
Reviews
Comments:
Review Status:
Review Comments
Stonewater Townhomes - Initial
Tuesday, January 07, 2014
Andrew Slack
E911
Initial Site Plan
Approved.
Approved
F. C
b. a
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper, Virginia 22701 -3819
Gregory A. Whirley
Commissioner of Highways
November 21, 2013
Mr. Christopher Perez
Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SDP - 2013 -00055 Stonewater Townhomes — Initial Site Plan
Dear Mr. Perez:
We have reviewed the initial site plan for the Stonewater Townhomes dated 1017113 as submitted
by Collins Engineering and offer the following comments:
1. The available sight distance at the intersection of Rio Road and Penfield lane needs to be
verified to ensure adequate sight distance. Additional grading on the townhome lots may
be necessary to ensure that there is adequate sight distance.
2. The landscape plan as well as any proposed fencing for the townhomes must be located
such that the sight distance at the Rio Road and Penfield Lane intersection is not
adversely impacted.
3. A signal warrant should be provided to determine the threshold for a new traffic signal at
the intersection of Rio Road and Penfield Lane.
If you need additional information concerning this project, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Troy Austin, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
November 21, 2013
Scott Collins, PE
Collins Engineering
200 Garrett Street, Suite K
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: SDP-2013-55 Stonewater Townhomes Site Plan- Initial
Dear Sir:
Department of Community Development has reviewed the above referenced site plan (dated 10-7-13) against
applicable codes and ordinances. Comments are provided below:
1. [32.4.2.1(f)] The public notification fee of $200 has not been paid. Comments have been held till the SRC
meeting of Nov 21, 2013. The site plan action/ approval letter will not be issues for this initial site plan until
the notification fee is paid. Also, VDOT comments, if any, are pending.
2. [Condition of Approval] During the initial submittal and review of the preliminary subdivision plat
[SUB2005-241] for this project the applicant requested that all details having to do with the townhouse lots
and all infrastructure necessary to serve it would be dealt with at the future site plan stage of the
development. Thus these items became conditions of approval. The current submittal is now in the site plan
stage of review, thus staff has included all applicable comments for the townhouse lots.
3. [32.5.2(p), Condition of Approval, 14-401, 14-419, 32.7.9.7] Screening of Double Frontage Lots.
“Double frontage residential lots shall be screened between the rear of the residences and the public right-of-
way” Pursuant to Section 14-419 the required screening shall be dictated by the requirements of Section
32.7.9.7.
The proposed landscaping depicted on Rio Road East and Penfield Lane appears to meet the Street Tree
requirements of the ordinance (32.7.9.5) but does not meet the Screening requirements of the ordinance for
double frontage lots (32.7.9.7), both landscaping requirements must be met. Revise landscape plan for the
townhomes to also meet the Screening requirements of the ordinance pursuant to Section 32.7.9.7(a, b, c, d,
and e).
4. [32.5.2(p), Condition of Approval, 14-401, 14-419, 32.7.9.7] Also, the approved road plan
[SUB200700077] contains a landscaping plan for the Townhouse section of the development which appears
to meet the street tree requirements of the ordinance along Rio Road East and Penfield Lane; however, neither
the proposed site plan nor the approved road plans’ landscaping for the Townhouse section meets the
Screening requirements of the ordinance for double frontage lots. Once the townhomes’ landscaping plan on
the site plan has been revised and approved, the road plan’s landscaping sheet for the townhome section
should be amended to match the site plan prior to final site plan approval. Revise.
5. [32.5.2(p), Condition of Approval, 32.7.9.5(e)3] Landscaping along streets. The required parking
spaces from the townhome lots 35-41 are adjacent to Lot 34. When cars park in these spaces at night
their headlights will shine directly onto Lot 34 and potentially other lots in the development. Staff
understands that street landscaping was not depicted nor required in this area on the approved road plans
because of conflicts with the sanitary sewer line easements in this same location. However upon review of
the townhomes proposed parking staff feels that some alternative such as evergreen shrubs of ever trees
be placed in the open space across from Lots 35-41 to limit impacts of the require parking for the
townhomes. Section 32.7.9.5(e)3 provides for the agent to authorize different landscaping designs to
minimize impact of the parking area. Revise.
6. [32.5.2(a)] It appears the setback lines for Block A and Block B are incorrectly labeled on the plan and
should be revised at this time. Notably these two blocks should each have 3 fronts and one side. Each have a
front on Rio Road East which must depict a 25’ setback, each have a front on Penfield Lane which must
depict a 25’ setback, Block A has a front on Treesdale Way and Block B has a front on Stonehenge Way, of
which each must depict a 25’ setback. Revise.
7. [32.5.2(a)] It appears that the General Notes on sheet 1 need to be updated. Specifically the adjacent
property information (note #10) seems out of date, as staff was unable to locate TMP 06100-00-00-
18300 which is listed on the site plan as being owned by AHIP. Staff believes this property is now TMP
06100-00-00-18200 owned by Treesdale. Revise appropriately. Also current property owner information
for Blocks A and B as listed on the site plan (note #1) do not match that in County Tax Records. The DB
page references numbers provided in general note #4 does not reflect Rio Rd Holding, LLC as the owner.
County Tax Records indicate that the owner of Block A (TMP 061A1-01-0A-00100) as Marvin and
Carolyn Spencer and the owner of Block B (TMP 061A1-01-0B-00100) as Albert and Lisa Spaaar.
Revise appropriately and clarify the ownership information.
8. [32.5.2(n), 32.7.2.3(a), 14-422] Sidewalks and landscaping strips. On the plan please dimension and label
all existing and proposed sidewalks and planting strips. Additionally, clarify the lack of sidewalk and
planting strip connections fronting the townhouse lots 35-47 onto Stonehenge Way and Treesdale Way.
These sidewalks and landscape strips are required and appropriately depicted on the approved road plan;
however, they are not depicted on the initial site plan currently under review in this office. Rather this
proposal includes concrete driveway entrances and driveways accessing Lots 35 – 47 in place of the
previously approved sidewalks and planting strips. Revise.
The road plans and the site plan should match. Be aware that if changes to this site plan cause it to not match
the road plans, the road plans must be amended before final site plan approval can be granted. Revise to
provide sidewalks and landscaping strip.
9. [Condition of Approval, 32.5.6.i, 32.7.2.3(a)(c)] Sidewalks along streets. Please extend the sidewalks
fronting Block A and B which front Treesdale Way and Stonehenge way to the property lines shared with
Stonehenge and Treesdale. Also, these sidewalks should not abruptly end rather they should have CG-12/
ADA accessible ramps to the street for persons with mobility impairment. Revise.
10. [32.5.2(n)] It appears there is a median between each driveway for lots 35-47. Will this be concrete or grass?
On the plans please clarify.
11. [32.5.2(n)] On the plan dimension the four (4) required guest spaces along Treesdale Way and Stonehenge
Way. If the applicant chooses for these spaces to be intermitted rather than paint stripped then parking
signage shall be depicted on the plan. Regardless of the chosen method to designate/delineate parking on the
plan, assure the dimensions of the spaces are shown on the site plan. Revise.
12. [32.5.2 (n)] Sheet 2 depicts project limits; however, it appears that modification will actually go beyond these
limits, specifically within the private right-of-way easements of Stonehenge Way and Treesdale Way for
driveway connections. Revise the project limits appropriately.
13. [32.5.2(p), 32.7.9.4(b)2] Staff questions how the existing tree adjacent to Lot 47 is to remain based on
it’s proximity to the proposed structure. It appears this is the only tree to remain. Regardless, if trees are
to remain, a signed tree conservation plan shall be provided.
14. [32.5.2 (n), 4.12.15(h)] Separation of parking area from public street or private road. Where off-street
parking is provided, parking areas shall be established sufficiently inside the site so as to prevent queuing
onto a public street or private road. The minimum required separation shall be determined by the county
engineer and will be based on the intensity of traffic on the site. In any case, the minimum separat ion
should not be less than one (1) car length for the most minimal use. Assure that the parking spaces for Lot
41 and Lot 42 have sufficient separation distance from vehicles turning into Treesdale Way or Stonehenge
Way from Penfield Lane.
15. [Comment] Upon a recent site visit it was observed that the entrance of the 30’ Greenway Access and
Stormwater Management Maintenance Easement does not currently connect to the existing sidewalk fronting
Treesdale Way. When is this to be paved?
16. [Comment] Also, there is a portion of the Greenway Access and Stormwater Management Maintenance
Easement located on Stonewater’s property which was not built/paved, specifically the 12’ portion of the
easement which connects to Treesdale (DB3932PG498). This segment needs to be paved to provide
Treesdale residents access to the greenway. When is this to be paved?
17. [Comment] Sheet 1, note #21 appears to have a typographical error which references 14 townhouse lots;
however, there are truly only 13. Revise.
Engineering Comments – Michelle Roberge
1) Verify with VDOT if warrants are met to design and install the signal at Rio Rd and Penn Park
Lane to satisfy Treesdale Park proffer.
2) The sidewalk to the townhomes along Treesdale Way and Stonehenge Way is not uniform
throughout the entire length. It jogs out, then crosses over medians between each lot. Show
sidewalk to tie into sidewalk from Penfield Lane.
3) Clarify what will be in the median between each lot.
4) Please note that a subdivision plat is required to subdivide the lots as shown on plan. The
approved plat from SUB2007-77 shows this area as Block A and Block B only.
5) There is an existing overhead electric line running through the proposed development. Clarify the
new location of electric line since it will be an obstruction when townhomes are built.
6) Show CG-12 near lots 41 an 42 from Penfield Lane.
7) Some existing items need to be shown or removed. Address the following:
a) Show existing sidewalk along Treesdale Way and Stonehenge Way, just across proposed
townhomes.
b) A portion of fence across Stonehenge Way near lot 47 has been removed. Please remove
on plans.
c) There is a retaining wall south of building in the Treesdale development. Show wall and
include existing grading between Treesdale and this development. See WPO2011-88
since the proposed contours now appear to be existing. The proposed swale for
townhomes at this area will change slightly to tie to existing contours.
8) A WPO application shall be submitted for the proposed townhomes. The county records show
that the most current approved WPO application is WPO2012-73 (StonewaterSubdivision), but
E&S measures for the proposed townhomes are not included since it was considered future
development. Also, it appears from WPO2010-11(Treesdale Park), a portion of the townhomes
development is not draining to the enhanced extended detention pond. Please clarify in WPO
application.
E911 – Andrew Slack
1. Approved
Building Inspections – Jay Schlothauer
- No objections
ACSA – Alex Morrison
- See attached comments. Approved.
Fire and Rescue – Robbie Gilmer
- No objections
VDOT– Troy Austin
- Comments pending
Please contact Christopher P. Perez in the Planning Division by using cperez@albemarle.org or 434-296-
5832 ext. 3443 for further information or if you have questions.
1
Christopher Perez
From:Robbie Gilmer
Sent:Wednesday, November 20, 2013 4:16 PM
To:Christopher Perez
Subject:RE: SRC item ___ SDP2013-55 Stonewater Townhomes
Chris,
Based on the required fire flow of 1,000 gpm @20 psi Stonewater Townhomes should be good. The required fire flow
on townhomes doesn’t change until they have a setback closer than 10’.
Thanks for checking with me on this.
Thank you,
Robert Gilmer
Assist. Fire Marshal
Albemarle County Fire Rescue
460 StageCoach Road
Charlottesville, Va. 22901
Office 434-296-5833
Cell 434-531-6606
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 3:20 PM
To: Robbie Gilmer
Subject: SRC item ___ SDP2013-55 Stonewater Townhomes
Robbie,
I reviewed your comments for SDP2013-55 Stonewater Townhomes, of which you had no objections or
comments.
I wanted to follow up with you on a question regarding the fire flows on the site and assure that they are
adequate to have the reduced side setbacks from 15’ to 10’?
If you recall the single family lots in Stonewater as approved on SUB2007-77 were approved with zero lot lines
and had adequate fire flows; however, on that plan the townhome section was merely labeled and reviewed as
“future development” and did not show any setbacks, thus in my mind they were not included in your initial
approval.
These Townhouse lots had previously been reviewed by James Barber in 2009 under SDP200900048
Stonewater Townhomes…he approved it for a reduction in side yard setbacks based on fire flows (see attached
pdf). However that plan was withdrawn, thus his previous approval is not applicable.
I want to assure that we have adequate fire flows for the townhouse units to have a side yard setback reduction
from 15’ down to 10’. Let me know if it does or does not.
2
Thank you for your help.
Christopher P. Perez | Senior Planner
Department of Community Development |County of Albemarle, Virginia
401 McIntire Road | Charlottesville, VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext. 3443
168 Spotnap Road • Charlottesville • VA 22911 • Tel (434) 977-4511 • Fax (434) 979-0698
www.serviceauthority.org
TO: Christopher Perez
FROM: Alexander J. Morrison, Civil Engineer
DATE: November 18, 2013
RE: Site Plan Technical Review for:
The below checked items apply to
this site.
Submit 3 sets of construction drawings to the ACSA for review and approval (for sewer
and water meter location verification).
Dedication of Stonewater infrastructure (less the section of sewer installed across
Penfield Lane) before the ACSA will grant construction approval.
SDP201300055: Stonewater Townhomes- Initial Site
Plan
TMP# 61A1-1-A-100 & 61A1-1-B-100
1. This site plan is within the Authority’s jurisdictional area for:
A. Water and sewer
B. Water only
C. Water only to existing structure
D. Limited service
2. A 10 inch water line is located approximately on site.
3. Fire flow from, nearest public hydrant, located distant from this site plan, is
Gpm + at 20 psi residual.
4. An 8 inch sewer line is located approximately on site.
5. An Industrial Waste Ordinance survey form must be completed.
6. No improvements or obstructions shall be placed within existing or future
easements.
7. and plans are currently under review.
8. and plans have been received and approved.
9. No plans are required.
10. Final water and sewer plans are required for our review and approval prior to
granting construction approval.
11. Final site plan may/may not be signed.
12. RWSA approval for water and/or sewer connections.
13. City of Charlottesville approval for sewer.
Comments:
Project Name:
Date Completed:
Reviewer:
Department/Division/Agency:
Reviews
Comments:
Review Status:
Review Comments
Stonewater Townhomes - Initial
Monday, November 11, 2013
Jay Schlothauer
Inspections
Initial Site Plan
Based on plans dated October 7, 2013.
No comments or conditions.
No Objection
Project Name:
Date Completed:
Reviewer:
Department/Division/Agency:
Reviews
Comments:
Review Status:
Review Comments
Stonewater Townhomes - Initial
Monday, November 04, 2013
Andrew Slack
E911
Initial Site Plan
Approved.
Approved
Project Name:
Date Completed:
Reviewer:
Department/Division/Agency:
Reviews
Comments:
Review Status:
Review Comments
Stonewater Townhomes - Initial
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
Robbie Gilmer
Fire Rescue
Initial Site Plan
Based on plans dated 10/7/13
No objections or comments
No Objection
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
Project: Stonewater Townhomes - Initial
Plan preparer: Collins Engineering [434-293-3719]
Owner or rep.: Marvin & Carolyn Spencer
Plan received date: 7 Oct 2013
Date of comments: 17 Oct 2013
Reviewer: Michelle Roberge
Engineering has completed the review of application SDP201300055. Please see the following comments.
A. Site Development Plan (SDP201300055)
1) Verify with VDOT if warrants are met to design and install the signal at Rio Rd and Penn Park
Lane to satisfy Treesdale Park proffer.
2) The sidewalk to the townhomes along Treesdale Way and Stonehenge Way is not uniform
throughout the entire length. It jogs out, then crosses over medians between each lot. Show
sidewalk to tie into sidewalk from Penfield Lane.
3) Clarify what will be in the median between each lot.
4) Please note that a subdivision plat is required to subdivide the lots as shown on plan. The
approved plat from SUB2007-77 shows this area as Block A and Block B only.
5) There is an existing overhead electric line running through the proposed development. Clarify
the new location of electric line since it will be an obstruction when townhomes are built.
6) Show CG-12 near lots 41 an 42 from Penfield Lane.
7) Some existing items need to be shown or removed. Address the following:
a) Show existing sidewalk along Treesdale Way and Stonehenge Way, just across
proposed townhomes.
b) A portion of fence across Stonehenge Way near lot 47 has been removed. Please
remove on plans.
c) There is a retaining wall south of building in the Treesdale development. Show wall
and include existing grading between Treesdale and this development. See WPO2011-
88 since the proposed contours now appear to be existing. The proposed swale for
townhomes at this area will change slightly to tie to existing contours.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 2
8) A WPO application shall be submitted for the proposed townhomes. The county records show
that the most current approved WPO application is WPO2012-73 (StonewaterSubdivision), but
E&S measures for the proposed townhomes are not included since it was considered future
development. Also, it appears from WPO2010-11(Treesdale Park), a portion of the townhomes
development is not draining to the enhanced extended detention pond. Please clarify in WPO
application.
Sincerely,
Michelle Roberge